Harvard Analytical Framework - Yola



1- Harvard Analytical Framework | |

|Objectives |To demonstrate that there is an economic rationale for investing in women as well as men. |

| |To assist planners design more efficient projects. |

| |To emphasize importance of good information as basis for efficient/effective projects. |

| |To map the work of women and men in the community and highlight differences. |

|Features |Socio Economic Activity profile (looks at who does what, where, when and for how long?) |

| |Access and control profile (looks at who has access to and control over resources and benefits) |

| |Analysis of influencing factors (looks at other factors that affect the gender differentiations, past and present influences, and opportunities and constraints) |

| |Contains a checklist of key questions to ask at each stage |

|Best Suited |For project design rather than programme or policy planning. |

| |As a gender neutral entry point when working with those who might be resistant to looking at gender relations. |

| |For collecting baseline data. |

|Strengths |Practical and hands on. |

| |Collects and organises info about gender division of labour - it makes women’s work visible. |

| |Distinguishes between access to and control over resources. |

| |Useful for projects at micro level. |

| |Can be easily adapted to a range of settings. |

| |Relatively non-threatening as it is focussed on collecting facts. |

|Limitations |Needs to be used with another tool to allow idea of strategic gender needs to be identified. |

| |Focus on projects not programmes. |

| |Focus on efficiency not effectiveness - does not provide guidance on how to change gender inequalities. |

| |Top down planning tool that excludes men and woman’s own analysis of their situations. |

| |Can be carried out in a non-participatory way. |

| |Tends to over simplify, based on tick box approach |

| |Ignores other inequalities such as race, class and ethnicity. |

| |Emphasizes separation of activities based on sex or age - ignores connections and cooperative relations. |

|2- Gender Planning Framework (Caroline Moser) |

|Objectives |Focus on strategic gender needs and concentrates on gender inequalities and how to address these at programme and policy level. |

|Features |Gender roles identification - focus on triple roles of women (productive, reproductive and community) |

| |Gender needs assessment (practical and strategic needs) |

|Best Suited |For planning at all levels from policies to projects. |

| |In conjunction with the Harvard Framework |

|Strengths |Assumes planning exists to challenge unequal gender relations and support women’s empowerment. |

| |Makes ALL work visible through concept of triple roles. |

| |Alerts planners to interrelationships of triple roles. |

| |Recognizes institutional and political resistance to transforming gender relations. |

| |Distinguishes between practical gender needs (those that relate to women’s daily life) and strategic gender needs (those that potentially transform the current situation) |

|Limitations |Framework does not mention other inequalities like class, race and ethnicity. |

| |Framework is static and does not examine change over time. |

| |Looks at separate, rather than inter-related activities of women and men. |

| |Strict division of practical and strategic needs not always helpful in practise. |

| |Strategic needs of men not addressed. |

|3- Social Relations Framework (Naila Kabeer IDS) |

|Objectives |To analyze gender inequalities in the distribution of resources, responsibilities and power. |

| |To analyze relationships between people, their relationships to resources and activities and how these are reworked through institutions. |

| |To emphasize human well being as the final goal of development. |

|Features |Development is increasing human wellbeing (survival, security autonomy) |

| |Social relationship analysis. The way people are positioned in relation to tangible and intangible resources. |

| |Institutional analysis Key institutions; state, market, legal, family/kinship. Aspects of institutions; rules, activities, resources, people, power. |

| |Institutional gender policy analysis |

| |Analysis of underlying and structural causes and the effects of these. |

|Best Suited |Can be used across all modalities of development delivery from project to policy planning. Can be used at local, national, regional and international levels. |

|Strengths |Presents a broader picture of poverty. |

| |Conceptualizes gender as central to development thinking not an add-on. |

| |Used at different levels for planning and policy development. |

| |Links micro and macro analysis. |

| |Centers analysis on institutions and highlights their political aspects. |

| |Highlights interactions between inequalities - race, class, and ethnicity. |

| |Dynamic - works to uncover processes of impoverishment and empowerment. |

|Limitations |Can appear to be complicated. |

| |Since it looks at all inequalities - it can subsume gender into other analytical categories. |

| |Can overlook the potential for people to effect change. |

| |May give an overwhelming impression of large institutions. |

|4- Women’s Empowerment Framework |

|Objectives |To achieve women’s empowerment by enabling women to achieve equal control over factors of production and participate equally in the development process. |

|Features |Framework introduces five hierarchical levels of equality (the higher you go the more empowered you are) |

| |Control |

| |Participation |

| |Conscientisation |

| |Access |

| |Welfare |

| |Framework distinguishes between women’s issues and concerns as well as identifying three levels of recognition of women’s issues in project design. |

|Best Suited |Useful across micro (project) and macro (country strategy) levels of analysis. |

| |Useful where focus is specifically on empowerment of women. |

|Strengths |Framework can be used to prepare profiles of levels of recognition as well as profiles of analysis of levels of equality across sectors. |

| |Develops notion of practical and strategic gender needs into progressive hierarchy. |

| |Articulates empowerment as essential element of development. |

| |Enables assessment of interventions based on grounds of empowerment. |

| |Has a strong political perspective - aims to change attitudes. |

|Limitations |Assumption of levels of equality is strictly hierarchical is questionable. |

| |Framework profiles are static and do not take account of changes over time. |

| |Focus on gender equality only takes no account of interrelationships between rights and responsibilities. |

| |Ignores other forms of inequality. |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download